§ 3.20 p.m.
§ Lord Stallard asked Her Majesty's Government:
§ Further to exchanges on 10th October (HL deb. col. 604), whether other organisations besides the Electoral Reform Society have been approached concerning Housing Bill ballots, and if so which organisations and in what manner.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness)My Lords, so far only one other expression of interest has been received from a specialist ballot services company, with which the Housing Corporation is in contact. Other organisations which may be interested in the duties of the independent teller are invited to contact the Department of the Environment or the corporation.
§ Lord StallardMy Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, it does not take us much further. I had hoped to hear the noble Earl say that there would be some kind of approval of the organizations 1254 asked to take on this task. Approval or acceptance would mean that the organisations themselves accept a voting system stipulating that all abstentions, for whatever reason, shall be counted as "yes" votes in favour of a landlord's proposals to acquire existing tenancies. This means that the proposals contain an in-built incentive for landlords to encourage abstentions, the more so when, as I understand, the landlords will be financing the operation and administration of the balloting schemes. Is that not therefore pointing to a further danger that these societies mentioned by the Minister—
§ Lord StallardMy Lords, "Is there not a danger?" appears to me to be a question. Is there not a danger that the societies will be seen to be less than impartial, thus encouraging that incentive?
§ Lord StallardMy Lords, I made notes while the Minister was speaking; I have merely glanced at them. It is a sad fact that whenever—
§ Lord StallardMy Lords, is it not a sad fact that Ministers and noble Lords opposite jeer whenever the problems of tenants of housing associations are mentioned? Would it not be better if they listened and became involved in some of these serious problems?
The Earl of CaithnessMy Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, asked some questions which I hope I answered during the debate on 10th October when we were in Committee on the Housing Bill. It is Parliament's duty to lay down the rules, and it will be for the independent teller to see that those rules are interpreted properly and fairly.
§ Lord EltonMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that the greeting given to the last intervention of the noble Lord who tabled this Question was not directed at the content of his intervention but at its manner and length?
§ Lord DenhamMy Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House—
§ Lord Stoddart of SwindonMy Lords, I am most obliged to the Government Chief Whip for giving way. Does not the Minister agree that it is an outrageous electoral principle that the votes of those not voting should be added to one side of the argument? Indeed, is it not a dangerous precedent to set? Will the Minister take this supposition into account? Let us say that on a strike ballot all the abstaining voters were added to the "yes" vote, as is proposed in the Bill. Is that not a principle that the Government themselves would not adhere to?
The Earl of CaithnessMy Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, will know that I disagree with him for the reasons that I set out in Committee. Of course, he has failed to point out to the House that those who wish to remain with their existing landlords can opt to do so.
§ Lord McIntosh of HaringeyMy Lords, will the Minister make a better attempt to answer the supplementary question put by my noble friend Lord Stoddart? He asked whether, in the circumstances where an applicant, a private landlord, has an interest in a high number of extensions, there is not a contradiction in having the applicant pay the costs of the independent monitoring body?
The Earl of CaithnessMy Lords, no. I disagree with the basis on which the noble Lord formulates that question.